Los Angeles County presidential results by assembly district

[freepcrusher]

Here is the map used from 1952-1960



1952
AD 40 71% Stevenson
AD 41 58.2% Eisenhower
AD 42 58.1% Ike
AD 43 72.4% Ike
AD 44 56.5% Ike
AD 45 55.3% Stevenson
AD 46 62.8% Ike
AD 47 70.6% Ike
AD 48 74% Ike
AD 49 67.4% Ike
AD 50 62.9% Ike
AD 51 60% Stevenson
AD 52 51.8% Ike
AD 53 67.5% Ike
AD 54 61.5% Ike
AD 55 72.8% Stevenson
AD 56 59.1% Ike
AD 57 63.2% Ike
AD 58 63.2% Ike (possible typo)
AD 59 59.6% Ike
AD 60 69.1% Ike
AD 62 77.4% Stevenson
AD 63 52.2% Ike
AD 64 63.3% Ike
AD 65 54.9% Ike
AD 66 50.4% Stevenson
AD 67 52.7% Stevenson
AD 68 58.8% Stevenson
AD 69 51.5% Stevenson
AD 70 60.5% Ike

1956
40 71.3% Stevenson
41 55.8% Ike
42 55.7% Ike
43 72.1% Ike
44 57.1% Ike
45 56.3% Stevenson
46 63.5% Ike
47 70.9% Ike
48 74% Ike
49 65.6% Ike
50 60.7% Ike
51 59.8% Stevenson
52 53% Ike
53 66.3% Ike
54 60.1% Ike
55 68.8% Stevenson
56 56.7% Ike
57 58.1% Ike
58 59.8% Ike
59 55.1% Ike
60 68% Ike
61 62.1% Stevenson
62 72.5% Stevenson
63 52.6% Ike
64 60% Ike
65 50.4% Ike
66 51.6% Stevenson
67 51.7% Stevenson
68 56.7% Stevenson
69 51.1% Stevenson
70 59.1% Ike

1960
40 76.7% Kennedy
41 50.8% Kennedy
42 50.8% Kennedy
43 67.9% Nixon
44 53.1% Nixon
45 62.3% Kennedy
46 58.8% Nixon
47 65.9% Nixon
48 69% Nixon
49 58.7% Nixon
50 54.6% Nixon
51 63.9% Kennedy
42 50.7% Kennedy
53 60.1% Nixon
54 56.2% Nixon
55 77.8% Kennedy
56 51.6% Nixon
57 51.1% Nixon
58 53.2% Nixon
59 51.2% Kennedy
60 61.3% Nixon
61 67.9% Kennedy
62 82.4% Kennedy
63 59.5% Kennedy
64 52% Nixon
65 62.3% Kennedy
66 61.9% Kennedy
67 57.3% Kennedy
68 60.9% Kennedy
69 54.1% Kennedy
70 53.2% Nixon

[freepcrusher]

here's the maps used from 1968-1972 (1968 is two party vote)


38 51.1% Humphrey 68, 54.5% Nixon 72
39 60.5% Nixon 68, 62.3% Nixon 72
40 62.1% Humphrey 68, 55.2% McGovern 72
41 52.1% Nixon 68, 58.7% Nixon 72
42 53.2% Humphrey 68, 54.6% Nixon 72
43 66.3% Nixon 68, 69% Nixon 72
44 52.8% Nixon 68, 58.9% Nixon 72
45 51.8% Humphrey 68, 56.9% Nixon 72
46 67.3% Nixon 68, 69.3% Nixon 72
47 65.3% Nixon 68, 64% Nixon 72
48 54.6% Humphrey 68, 51% McGovern 72
49 65% Nixon 68, 67.7% Nixon 72
50 51.4% Nixon 68, 61.3% Nixon 72
51 50.3% Humphrey 68, 57.3% Nixon 72
52 53.3% Nixon 68, 62.7% Nixon 72
53 91.3% Humphrey 68, 87.5% McGovern 72
54 73.2% Nixon 68, 74.6% Nixon 72
55 87.1% Humphrey 68, 82.2% McGovern 72
56 62.8% Humphrey 68, 58.9% McGovern 72
57 53.2% Nixon 68, 55.4% Nixon 72
58 54.3% Nixon 68, 56.2% Nixon 72
59 66% Humphrey 68, 63.8% McGovern 62
60 54% Nixon 68, 52.4% Nixon 72
61 67.7% Humphrey 68, 58.9% McGovern 62
62 64% Nixon 68, 72.1% Nixon 72
63 66.6% Humphrey 68, 65.8% McGovern 72
64 58.8% Nixon 68, 63.4% Nixon 72
65 61.9% Humphrey 68, 63% McGovern 72
66 56.6% Nixon 68, 66.5% Nixon 72
67 50.9% Nixon 68, 61.1% Nixon 72
68 forgot to right down 68 #s, went 57.3% Nixon 72

[freepcrusher]

Note: from now on, I’m only counting districts wholly within LA County. Here are the districts used from 1974-1980. 1980 is two party vote. The one I forgot to write in was AD 53.

AD 39 76 51.9% Carter; 80 57.2% Reagan
AD 40 76 51.5% Carter; 80 57.6% Reagan
AD 41 76 62.5% Ford; 80 72% Reagan
AD 42 76 61.8% Ford; 80 63.3% Reagan
AD 43 76 50.4% Carter; 80 55.4% Reagan
AD 44 76 56.3% Carter; 80 53.7% Carter
AD 45 76 58.6% Carter; 80 55% Carter
AD 46 76 55.2% Carter; 80 54.7% Carter
AD 47 76 80.1% Carter; 80 81.6% Carter
AD 48 76 79.2% Carter; 80 79.9% Carter
AD 49 76 69.1% Carter; 80 71.1% Carter
AD 50 76 67.3% Carter; 80 70.8% Carter
AD 51 76 65.7% Ford; 80 72.5% Reagan
AD 52 76 52% Ford; 80 61.6% Reagan
AD 53 76 58.4% Carter; 80 52.8% Carter
AD 54 76 72.1% Carter; 80 68.9% Carter
AD 55 76 59% Carter; 80 55.5% Carter
AD 56 76 71.7% Carter; 80 69.2% Carter
AD 57 76 55.9% Carter; 80 51.8% Reagan
AD 58 76 forgot to right down #, but I think it went for Ford; 80 65.2% Ford
AD 59 76 55% Carter; 80 50.1% Reagan
AD 60 76 57.7% Carter; 80 53.4% Reagan
AD 61 76 65.3% Ford; 80 72.4% Reagan
AD 62 76 59.2% Ford; 80 70.7% Reagan
AD 63 76 51.1% Ford; 80 63.6% Reagan
AD 64 76 61.2% Ford; 80 72.2% Reagan

[freepcrusher]

seriously, no interest?

[smoltchanov]

There is. But you have to be California politics guru to remember which districts were what 40-50 years ago and how did they changed since that

[Gass3268]

seriously, no interest?

It's hard to visualize the numbers with the maps. It would be awesome if you were to make your own maps of LA County and then shade the districts based on their party strength!

[freepcrusher]

LA County 1952


Code: Blue - not only voted for Eisenhower but above his national %
          Green - voted for Eisenhower, but below his national %
          Red - voted for Stevenson

[freepcrusher]

1956

[freepcrusher]

1960

[freepcrusher]

a lot of big name CA pols represented these districts.

- District 49 (NE corner of county) was represented by Houston Flournoy, who ran for governor in 1974

- District 50 (Whittier area) was represented by Ronald Cameron, who was in congress for a brief period in the 60s

- District 58 (Hollywood Hills) was represented by Joe Shell, who primaried Nixon for governor in 1962

- District 59 (Beverly Hills) was represented by Thomas Rees, who was in the u.s. house from 1965-1977

- District 62 (just south of downtown) was represented by Gus Hawkins, who was in the us house from 1963-1991

- District 65 sort of in the Crenshaw area, was represented by Jesse Unruh who eventually became speaker of the house, then ran for governor in 1970, and was later treasurer

- District 66 (not quite south central not quite west LA) was represented by Charles Wilson, a us house member from 1963-1981

[smoltchanov]

Really interesting. Didn't expect for example that Northern part of LA county  (like district 41-42), which i always considered the most Republican part of county, was relatively volatile in 1950-60..

[freepcrusher]

Really interesting. Didn't expect for example that Northern part of LA county  (like district 41-42), which i always considered the most Republican part of county, was relatively volatile in 1950-60..

Those are "disguised" districts. No one really lived in the Antelope Valley back then and the bulk of the population was in the San Fernando Valley. Even then, I would guess areas like Sylmar and Pacoima were dem leaning.

[freepcrusher]

1968

61st was Henry Waxman's district

[freepcrusher]

1972

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Great work!


Could you possibly provide the presidential results b/congressional district for L.A. during 1960 and 1964?

[freepcrusher]

Great work!


Could you possibly provide the presidential results b/congressional district for L.A. during 1960 and 1964?

I can't for some reason find the 1964 results. I'll probably figure out a way to get it eventually. My guess is Goldwater won the ADs east of the SFV to the SB County line on the foothill and the Palos Verdes one. As for 1960:

CD 15 55.2% Kennedy
CD 16 55.8% Nixon
CD 17 52.3% Kennedy
CD 18 53.2% Nixon
CD 19 65.6% Kennedy
CD 20 66.9% Nixon
CD 21 58.2% Nixon
CD 22 51.7% Nixon
CD 23 58.1% Kennedy
CD 24 53.6% Nixon
CD 25 57.2% Nixon
CD 26 69% Kennedy

if the lines had remain unchanged throughout the 60s here's my guess as to how things would have gone:

15 - McDonough probably would have lost in either 1962 or definitely 1964. It was already 32% black by 1960
16 -with Jackson (who was considered conservative) he definitely would have been toast by the early 70s with West LAs leftward shift. Al Bell, who was a moderate, probably could have held on as long as he wanted
17 - I'm not sure if the black population had encroached on the district by then. But with the ultraconservative Palos Verdes area becoming a larger % of the district and the traditionally dem areas of the South Bay tending GOP, it would probably have gone republican by 1968. Glenn Anderson nearly lost the open seat in 1968 without Palos Verdes
18 - probably would have remained republican until Hosmer retired in 1974, just like in real life
19 - it seems that during the 1960s, the dem performance in the SE part of the district declined badly, but would have been compensated for by the Hispanic population increase in the western part.
20 - probably would have been republican until the 90s
21 - probably would have stayed republican until a decade or so ago
22 - Corman probably would have lost in 1966 and the seat would have gone back to the democrats by 1974
23 - the republican trend in the eastern part would have been negated by the dem trend in the western part. It would have remained dem when Doyle died in 1963
24 - probably would have gone dem in 1964
25 - probably would have remained republican for several decades
26 - would have gotten even more safely dem

[freepcrusher]

1950s congressional map

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Awesome, thank you!

[Fuzzybigfoot]

How about the results for all of California? 

[smoltchanov]

Really interesting. Didn't expect for example that Northern part of LA county  (like district 41-42), which i always considered the most Republican part of county, was relatively volatile in 1950-60..

Those are "disguised" districts. No one really lived in the Antelope Valley back then and the bulk of the population was in the San Fernando Valley. Even then, I would guess areas like Sylmar and Pacoima were dem leaning.

Thanks for clarification!

[freepcrusher]

I'm surprised Torie hasn't said anything about this since he grew up there during the time of these maps.

One thing I've noticed is that between 1956 and 1972, democratic strength eroded in the eastern part of the county while it strengthened in the western part, essentially cancelling each other out.

[Sbane]

One thing I've noticed is that between 1956 and 1972, democratic strength eroded in the eastern part of the county while it strengthened in the western part, essentially cancelling each other out.

That makes perfect sense though, doesn't it?

[socaldem]

LA County 1952


Code: Blue - not only voted for Eisenhower but above his national %
          Green - voted for Eisenhower, but below his national %
          Red - voted for Stevenson

AD 52 and the green districts in central LA are interesting. Transitioning pre-white flight working class conservatives.

[socaldem]

1972

This map also shows it. Southeast Los Angeles used to have tons of "ethnic" working class white voters. Areas like Paramount, South Gate, Norwalk, Downey, etc. are now largely Latino. Some of the white old folks are still there (my grandma and godmother among them) and actually hold quite a bit of sway in low-turnout municipal elections.

But prior to the transition, the areas had pretty reactionary politics.

Prediction: much of Northern Orange County and nearly all of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are going to have similar voting patterns unless there is some sudden nationwide political realignment...its already starting to happy Assemblymembers Fox (Palmdale) and Quirk-Silva and Congressman Takana and Ruiz...

Pretty soon all of SoCal may look like Massachusetts, except a small swath of Northern/Eastern San Diego and Southern Orange County.